Someday an AFFORDABLE M mount digital?

The digital M will be shown at photokina this year. Some information from a very good source indicates Leica may have a working prototype to show their reps in August.

 

Whether anyone buys the camera is up to the market, and not the sages on this website who guess about everything so that they can have an opinion that matches their personal feelings about Leica.

 

What has been done previously with digital sensors and Leica M lenses has no bearing on what Leica is doing. For the digital M product, Leica has the DMR learning curve behind them, and the final camera should come out faster as many of the issues have been solved through the DMR development.

 

The same people who are giving these uniformed opinions about the Digital M are the same folks who assured us that Leica would NEVER make a digital back for the R system - and, if they did they'd never be able to manufacture or deliver the system in quantity, no one would buy it, the back wouldn't work, etc., etc.

Vinay, you cannot compare like that! :)

 

The M8 will not come with prints, and film + processing (no prints) is a lot cheaper than $20. My calculation indicates at least 10 years of processing, and that is a long time to write off a digital camera.

Leica's "success" with DMR does not suggest potential for a digital M, unless your definition of digital M includes watermelon size (the DMR being two watermelons)...and that doesn't rival smaller, cheaper Canon or Nikon behemoths? If it DID rival Canon and Nikon, many pros would be using it, of course...not just orthodontists and Saudis.

"Leica's "success" with DMR does not suggest potential for a digital M, unless your definition of digital M includes watermelon size (the DMR being two watermelons)...and that doesn't rival smaller, cheaper Canon or Nikon behemoths? If it DID rival Canon and Nikon, many pros would be using it, of course...not just orthodontists and Saudis."

 

 

Total drivel since you obviously have NO knowledge of either the digital M or the DMR - yet you feel compelled to invent negative comments.

 

Having used the DMR, I can tell you that it is NO larger than the Canon 1DS. You obviously have a real bias against Leica - for what reason?

 

Many pros are using the DMR. Leica SLRs have never been huge sellers in the sports or photo journalism markets - no autofocus. Those pro market segments are not Leica's market. However, many wildlife/nature, magazine, and studio photographers are using the DMR. You really have NO idea what your talking about - why do you even bother to comment?

 

As for the DMR success - they're selling every one they can make and have exceeded their 1st year production projections. Whether that constitutes "success" by your definition is inconsequential - Leica has their own internal sales expectations that they are exceeding - that's what counts to Leica.

 

As for selling to orthondontists and Saudis - only more of your blatant predjudice showing. You have no point to make with that type of a comment - only more uninformed bloviating

 

If your insights/predictions are so prescient with no actual information - can you give me next week's winning PowerBall number?

There are advantages to the interchangeable lens rangefinder design that Canon users like Bob don't seem to be able to grasp - there always have been and probably always will be.

 

The Canon D5 is a fine, sophisticated camera, great for sport and wildlife, but is clearly not designed for those photographers who like to use a small discreet camera to have with them at all times. It is a cumbersome block and its lenses are worse. If you like it fine - but many people don't. What those that use Leica's, Hexars and Voigtlanders want is a digital equvalent of what they see as a camera designed for their needs. Far from being an obsolete design, mamy, many people see it as an apogee of design and the modern Brick DSLR's as a step backwards.

People talk frequently of professional photographers. Let's not be blinded by this term. Most professional photographers, here in London, work for newspapers and magazines, these newspapers and many magazines want cover for their emerging stories, which means hundreds of professionals gathering at certain points to snap politicians, celebrities etc.

 

Of course they will choose to have a digital DSLR with a zoom and autofocus and snap away at the fastest rate to grab the image they've been sent to get. The professional camera market needs to take the needs of these hard-working professionals (with good budgets) into account. BUT what does that have to do with the needs of so many other photographers who are not bound by these sqame pressing constraints?

 

Why should the heavy, automated instruments these professionals need to use dictate how all high quality cameras are to be? Some people even have the independence of mind to think for themselves and realise they don't need the bulk, don't need the automation, want to focus themselves, and want good viewfinders. They seek out smaller scale manufacturers that cater to that. Unfortunately they have to pay the price for smaller scale production, but that does not mean we are all orthodontists, Saudis or fondlers.

<<Vinay, you cannot compare like that! :)

 

The M8 will not come with prints, and film + processing (no prints) is a lot cheaper than $20. My calculation indicates at least 10 years of processing, and that is a long time to write off a digital camera.>>

 

Maybe there's a language barrier here? I know the M8 won't come with prints. That wasn't my point. My point was that if you buy 250 rolls of C41 film, have it processed and get 4x6 prints (proofs), it will cost around $5000 (true, if you buy film and get it processed at Walmart it won't cost $20, but I was assuming anyone who would pay $3000 for a film Leica would be serious enough to buy "pro" film and have a "pro" lab process it and would most likely get a set of 4x6 prints rather than scan the whole roll just to see what's what...but perhaps this is a wrong assumption). In which case, if it would take you 10 years to amortize the $5000 M8, it means you shoot 2 rolls of film a month. Naturally, the rate of amortization will be directly proportional to how much you shoot. Me, it probably would take 10 yrs also. Fortunately I don't have to be that careful with money so I'll be getting an M8...and an M9 if it comes along.

"Leica has their own internal sales expectations that they are exceeding - that's what counts to Leica." :-)

 

No doubt.

 

They've been, uh, pleasing themselves for quite a while now.

 

What does that have to do with "AFFORDABLE M mount digital?"

 

"Many pros are using the DMR" :-)

 

The number of wildlife photographers and studio photographers that use DR hardly constitute "many," much less a representative sample of "professional photographers." The wildlife photographers I know use Canon, but I hear they use Nikon in other parts of the world.

 

And then there's the matter of the 10MP Pentax...

 

"...you obviously have NO knowledge of either the digital M.." :-)

 

"Having used the DMR, I can tell you that it is NO larger than the Canon 1DS." Another watermelon...or two, depending on lens.

 

Obviously Leica (or some company that licenses their name, such as Panasonic) can design something more resonant to M-shooters than the Epson..they may prove that with the 4/3 Leica...but I doubt they can do it with a rangefinder that you can carry discretely...isn't "compact" part of the Leica M ideal?

 

Presumably Leica wants to sell a whole new series of lenses, beginning with the image stabilized 4/3 Elmarit.

 

Might be nice in an M mount, configured to cover 2X3...optional autofocus, optional stabalization. They'd sell thousands to current M users and wouldn't even have to manufacture them.

 

Think of that: image stabilized/autofocus M. Flip a switch, on/off.

 

If cost is no object, as some claim, why would an M user go digital in the first place? Personal incompetence with B&W and scanning? Unwillingness to support local pro labs?

<i>"why would an M user go digital in the first place?"</i> -- you got it all backwards. Users go M because they can afford it, and want it. It makes no difference if it's digital or film, affordable or otherwise. Following this postulate, there will NEVER be an affordable M, film or digital, simply because once an affordable M is made (Re: Epson), it will hardly appeal to the niche consumers that consider themselves M-worthy.

> [..] Leica would be serious enough to buy "pro" film and have a "pro" lab process it and would most likely get a set of 4x6 prints rather than scan the whole roll just to see what's what...but perhaps this is a wrong assumption.

 

I actually just buy film, have it processed and scan it. Then adjust in Photoshop and print the pictures I really like, same as I would do with an M8.

 

I go through some 50+ films each year. I am pretty fed up with scanning at the moment, so I am interested in an affordable M.

 

But I have a feeling that I will end up with a small digicam instead, when I can find a model that suits me (we are not there yet) and use that in parallel with film, to reduce the burden of scanning.

 

My calculations for my situations indicate that a high end digicam (D-Lux 2 or similar) can pay for itself in 4 years, maybe even less. The M8 would take 10 years, and that is too long, though the ever cheaper getting US$ might help a bit.. :)

 

Then there is the saved time on scanning, compared to all the extra costs and routines for backups..

>As to "affordability" and an "under $1000" body, at $20 for a roll of 36-exp C41 film,

processing and 4x6 prints, a $5000 M8 can be thought of as a free camera and 250 rolls

of prepaid film and processing. Assuming someone shoots only 5 rolls a month, that

would take a little over 4 years.

 

This always seems like a false argument to me. Do you, or anybody else here, really buy

four years worth of film in one go? I know I don't. Even if you were to double the

throughput to 10 rolls a month , so it would be two years worth (or to 20 a month, for one

year's stock), the analogy holds IMHO.

Those prices are a bit high. I can usually buy a 4 pack of 24 exp. Fuji or Kodak Gold 200 for $6.99 or less, and get processing with 4x6 prints for $5.99 a roll. Another buck gets it onto a CD more than good enough for web use. That expensive M film body still has a residual value at the end of four years. The typical DSLR will be worth a lot less. Use whatever works for you.

An interesting thread so far; thought I would add my two cents worth to the mix.

 

Up until recently I used a Panasonic LC1, and although a reasonably decent camera its principle flaw is the EVF and its corresponding abortion of a manual focusing mechanism. If that camera had an optical viewfinder it would have been a gem (apart from the slow RAW write speed); a rangefinder viewfinder would have been even better, but of course that would have either negated or overly complicated the functionality of its remarkable (though flare prone) zoom lens. The cost would have likely gone through the roof also.

 

After using the LC1 for awhile I figured out that a digital M would suit my need for a compact and solid small format camera. That of course would depend on its functionality, and whether it retains the physical robustness of the M line. My hope is that they will retain the existing cloth shutter, and perhaps set-up the rangefinder cam so that it would compensate for the crop factor of the sensor -- i.e., if one mounted a 24 mm. lens, then an approx. 35 mm. brightline would be displayed. That would allow a certain continuity in visualization when using digital and film M's in the same session. For all that it matters, the brightlines have always been somewhat of a close approximation anyway.

 

I actually wouldn't mind if the digital M did not come with an LCD, particularly if having the latter would otherwise make the camera less dependable. The principle value of Leica rangefinders has always been their physical robustness and reliability, compactness, and the low light/fast manual focusing provided by the rangefinder mechanism. If Leica manages not to compromise those qualities then perhaps a digital M will be worth a reasonably high price tag; if not ...

Steve - "Having used the DMR, I can tell you that it is NO larger than the Canon 1DS"

 

Actually, the DMR is a couple of mm wider and deeper than a 1Ds, but that's not really the issue, because you're not making a fair comparison.

 

The Canon 1Ds is an EOS 1v chassis: with a motor and power supply big enough to blast the camera up to 8.5 frames/sec (as is done in the 1D II) and a 45 point auto focus system, and a weather sealed body, and a 100% frame accurate viewfinder.

 

The Modul-R + R9 is better compared to a Canon 5D. Slower motor drive (although still twice as fast as a DMR), lack of sealing, less than 100% finder, more primitive auto focus. 1/2 the weight and considerably smaller than DMR.

This is one of the longest threads of late. It's really quite instructive to click on the names of the contributors and see how many (i.e. few) photos they have posted on PN, and what the subject matter is. With a few notable exceptions that is, those being also the least opinionated.

"didn't someone post some images here taken with the RD-1 and some super wide angle

lenses? I seem to remember the result as obvious darkening in the corners of the frame."

 

True, there is darkening. However, on film the 12 and 15 CV lenses vignette about three to

four stops wide open, so I don't understand what the big deal is. At least with the R-D1 you

don't have to screw around with center gradient filters as the darkening is easily corrected

in RAW.

"I actually wouldn't mind if the digital M did not come with an LCD"

 

It'll never, ever, EVER happen though. You can wish for a car with sheet metal instead of

windows too, but I doubt you'll ever to be able to buy one.

 

And LCD screen can be extremely reliable, and just imagine the two or three dozen

buttons you'd need to have, plastered all over the Digital M, if it didn't have a screen! Turn

dial A to position C, then slide interlock G into the open position to select JPG - fine.

Imagine it for yourself.